The Climate Change - Children Paradox

1. We care about our children (fact)

2. If we care about our children then we care about climate change (obvious)

3. We care about climate change (1, 2 MP)

4. We don't care about climate change (fact)

5. We care about climate change and we don't care about climate change (3, 4 Conj) [Contradiction: Paradox]

Ergo,

6. Either we don't care about our children or we care about climate change

Yes but you have no empirical basis for this. If it’s simply a gut feeling— who cares? — Xtrix

Indeed.

Yes but you have no empirical basis for this. If it’s simply a gut feeling - who cares? — Xtrix

I care! To some extent that is.

I understand your point, but just like with the discussion you have had with @Xtrix about fusion energy where your opinion is just "I'm not optimistic", so too can it be that others are "not too optimistic" about geothermal as a silver bullet answer to everything (as it has high initial capital cost and with the present technology you don't find hot rocks everywhere). Yes, increasing geothermal energy production surely is one thing to do.

In fact many renewables could make the claim to handle all our energy needs "if only" enough should be invested in them and the technology would be improved. But it simply won't happen like that: energy production methods will compete against each other on the market and the price mechanism will select the ones which will dominate the energy sector. And even if for a long time, basically from the time humans had the ability to burn wood, fossil fuels have dominated energy production as it has been the cheapest way to produce energy, it hasn't been that people have used only fossil fuels.

There simply are various ways to produce energy and they simply won't go away. I suspect you don't have anything against hydropower? Those dams already built will likely to be used in the future too.

Oldest hydroelectric powerplant was built in 1882 in Fox River, Wisconsin. Yet the first water wheels go back to Antiquity (just as the idea of windmills).


Model of a Persian Windmill. Note that the Panemone windmill has a vertical axis rotating a millstone:

It was rhetorical. The point is that, as far as publicly debatable issues are concerned, unless we're going to have good ground for believing what we believe then there's no point in talking about it. — Isaac

You just said:

I could simply believe that CO2 emissions do not cause global climate change and so maintain the hope that we'll be fine without having to do anything at all. — Isaac

For you, it's rhetorical. I express opinions that are justified with reference to research, and obviously so - but what I don't have is tens of billions in folding cash and a great big drill, or I'd prove my point empirically.

If you just 'believe' that geothermal energy can support our current levels of material consumption then that's of no interest to a discussion community unless you have some ground to believe it which you can present. — Isaac

If you believe wind and solar can support our current levels of material consumption then you haven't done any research, or indeed, applied much in the way of reason. The UK alone would need something like 15,000 windmills, costing £250m each, producing 7 MW each, and even then, would have to store that energy or back it up with a fossil fuel generating capacity for when the wind stops blowing. Maintaining all those windmills - presumably at sea, is no small or inexpensive feat; and replacing them in 25 years at similar cost, does not constitute a cost effective means of producing an adequate amount of clean energy.

There are very good reasons to look for more substantial clean energy technologies; and magma is there - a huge source of clean energy seemingly within reach. I'm at a loss to understand your fierce opposition to that proposal. Can you see a reason it's impossible? Is the world not a big ball of molten rock?

I understand your point, but just like with the discussion you have had with Xtrix about fusion energy where your opinion is just "I'm not optimistic", so too can it be that others are "not too optimistic" about geothermal as a silver bullet answer to everything (as it has high initial capital cost and with the present technology you don't find hot rocks everywhere). Yes, increasing geothermal energy production surely is one thing to do. — ssu

I didn't express my opinion on fusion. Not really. I said I'm not optimistic, but actually, I think it won't work, not profitably anyway. My hunch is that the enormous gravity of the sun overcomes the Exclusion Principle, allowing fusion to occur, and that a sustained, profitable fusion reaction cannot be maintained in earth gravity. The input of energy, to simulate that gravitational pressure - and to contain the superheated plasma, will always be greater than the energy produced. IMO.

In fact many renewables could make the claim to handle all our energy needs "if only" enough should be invested in them and the technology would be improved. But it simply won't happen like that: energy production methods will compete against each other on the market and the price mechanism will select the ones which will dominate the energy sector. — ssu

We are threatened with a global scale catastrophe, and that's a problem we cannot solve doing business as usual. Applying technologies for power and profit brings us to this impasse. We need to look beyond ourselves, and apply the right technology for the right reasons - and that's science, and magma energy technology.

Magma energy is the only very large source of constant, high grade renewable energy that can be rapidly and safely developed, and has the potential to replace fossil fuels entirely. I don't particularly enjoy attacking other forms of renewables, but I don't see any other technology doing more than take the edge off fossil fuel use and GHG emissions.

We need to look beyond ourselves, and apply the right technology for the right reasons — counterpunch

Societies will function as they do. Don't think you can change them.

We are living now through a time of a global pandemic. We got many vaccines in break neck speed that usually have taken many years to develop. The implemented policies have been quite out of the normal and rapid. Yet the society has functioned as before. Markets have worked, it has been "business as usual" even if it has been totally out of the usual.

Hence this issue has to be dealt realistically, not to assume something that won't happen.

- and that's science — counterpunch

Science is a method of study.

What you are referring to is policy, which a totally different animal.

Science is a method of study. — ssu

Science is also a body of knowledge; a worldview, to contrast with an ideological worldview.

Applying technology in accord with an ideological worldview is the cause of climate change. That's how we come within sight of species extinction; and it's why we have the knowledge and technology to solve climate change, but don't apply it.

Applying technology in accord with a scientific understanding of reality is the answer to climate change.

I express opinions that are justified with reference to research — counterpunch

Well good, but the rest of us aren't going to just take it on faith are we. Let's have links to the research which says that sufficient clean energy can be obtained from magma to supply our current energy requirements.

If you believe wind and solar can support our current levels of material consumption — counterpunch

I don't.

I'm at a loss to understand your fierce opposition to that proposal. — counterpunch

I presume people far more knowledgable than me have looked into it already. It's not the strategy I'm fiercely opposed to, it's the maniacal advocation of it without a shred of supporting evidence.

Can you see a reason it's impossible? — counterpunch

Why would I? I'm not a geothermal engineer. I don't expect to be able to have a 'bit of a think about it' from my armchair and deduce all the problems that might arise. I'm sure it's a very complex field which requires thousands of hours training to understand.

Science is also a body of knowledge; a worldview, to contrast with an ideological worldview. — counterpunch

More of a view of Scientism than actual science.

Well good, but the rest of us aren't going to just take it on faith are we. — Isaac

If you refuse to value the opinion of someone who is clearly interested in, and knowledgeable about a subject then that's your too bad. I could, I suppose - produce a list of links you wouldn't even click on, never mind read - and allow you put me to work merely for your amusement. But I don't think so. I haven't seen any substance to your weirdly fierce opposition.

I presume people far more knowledgable than me have looked into it already. It's not the strategy I'm fiercely opposed to, it's the maniacal advocation of it without a shred of supporting evidence. — Isaac

You presume? Why not produce evidence? You demand evidence from me, while allowing yourself license to presume someone has already looked into it? With regard to magma energy, the basic technologies exist. The energy is there. The middle of the bridge is yet to be constructed, but I think it is possible.

It would certainly require specialist knowledge; for example, the question of how big a hole to drill is immensely complicated. Have you ever heard of Poiseuille’s Law? The materials science of pipes able to conduct heat, and withstand huge pressure is another area where specialist knowledge is indispensable. Dozens of other fields of specialist knowledge would need to be brought to bear - but the basic idea of harnessing the heat energy of the earth, at high temperatures and on a very large scale, is kinda obvious - and that's where I shine! Big ball of molten rock, d'uh!

More of a view of Scientism than Science. — ssu

I don't wish to take on all the baggage of scientism, but but on this one key issue - science offers an objective rationale for the application of technologies, it is necessary to apply if humankind wishes to continue to exist, or at least keep that option open. In face of the threat of climate and ecological catastrophe there are things we need to do to survive, and magma energy is necessary to any conceivable future. At the very least, we need that energy to power carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation and recycling.

One day magma energy would replace fossil fuels, but that need not be immediately, and so huge socially transformative infrastructure costs would not be pre-requisite to; and standing in the way of environmental benefits. If the world got together and developed this technology as a global good, we could carry on much as we are, and attack the problem from the supply side - offsetting carbon produced today by investing in the capacity to sequester it tomorrow.

It makes sense on more levels than merely the scientific, even if it is necessary to look first to a scientific understanding of reality to see the real world possibility, beyond the ideological battlements.

If you refuse to value the opinion of someone who is clearly interested in, and knowledgeable about — counterpunch

You given nothing to indicate the underlined. Everything you say might be nonsense for all we know because you refuse to cite anything.

I could, I suppose - produce a list of links you wouldn't even click on, never mind read - and allow you put me to work merely for your amusement. — counterpunch

What makes you think we'd be a) interested enough that your posts are worth your while writing yet b) not interested enough to read papers on the subject. You must have a very high opinion of yourself to consider you might hold our attention in a way no other source could.

You presume? Why not produce evidence? You demand evidence from me, while allowing yourself license to presume someone has already looked into it? — counterpunch

Because its a reasonable assumption. I really shouldn't have to explain this. To posit a world where no one but you has thought of a brilliant solution to global energy supply is a fantastic claim, definitely requires support. To assume a world in which at least one of the many thousands if scientists whose job it is to look into these prospects has, in fact, done just that, is not a particularly fantastic claim and needs reason to doubt it, not to hold it.

the basic idea of harnessing the heat energy of the earth, at high temperatures and on a very large scale, is kinda obvious — counterpunch

Then why do you think none of the scientists whose job it is to look into this sort of thing have arrived at the same conclusion you have?

You given nothing to indicate the underlined. Everything you say might be nonsense for all we know because you refuse to cite anything. — Isaac

What I propose hasn't been done. As far as I'm aware, the research doesn't exist. There is other research that is relevant in some respect, a piece of technology here, a geological fact there, but as far as I'm aware, there are no significant plans to plug into the planet at scale.

In any case, my contribution to the subject is not engineering expertise. It's philosophical. It's about the rightfulness and trustworthiness of science as a rationale for the application of technology - as demonstrated by the possibility of a prosperous sustainable future, against the likelihood of a grim march upon authoritarianism, poverty and oblivion.

What makes you think we'd be a) interested enough that your posts are worth your while writing yet b) not interested enough to read papers on the subject. You must have a very high opinion of yourself to consider you might hold our attention in a way no other source could. — Isaac

I hope I'm saying something others are not; something interesting and worthwhile thinking about. That's the best I can do. How long you can manage to focus is entirely your affair!

Because its a reasonable assumption. I really shouldn't have to explain this. — Isaac

So you are allowed reasonable assumptions, and I have to prove the earth is a big ball of molten rock?

To posit a world where no one but you has thought of a brilliant solution to global energy supply is a fantastic claim, definitely requires support. — Isaac

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying, using existing technologies it's possible for humankind to survive - and prosper. The future need not be a Malthusian nightmare. Because resources are ultimately a function of the energy available to create them, we could transcend limits to resources if we applied the right technologies, and could do so if we recognised a need to apply technology in relation to a scientific understanding of reality.

demonstrated by the possibility of a prosperous sustainable future — counterpunch

But you've yet to demonstrate this. That you think it's possible without any expertise in the matter at all, is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is, in fact, possible.

I hope I'm saying something others are not; something interesting and worthwhile thinking about. — counterpunch

Why? What's special about your guesswork that makes it worth thinking about?

So you are allowed reasonable assumptions, and I have to prove the earth is a big ball of molten rock? — counterpunch

No, you have to prove that it's technologically feasible to extract that heat without insurmountable consequential factors.

I'm saying, using existing technologies it's possible for humankind to survive - and prosper. — counterpunch

No, you're just declaring it to be the case without any evidence presented whatsoever. I don't think anyone has ruled out the mere possibility, so you declaring it is of no consequence at all. It's the likelihood relative to other options we're all concerned about, not the mere possibility.

we could transcend limits to resources if we applied the right technologies — counterpunch

We could, yes. Or we could not. Which it is will depend on the actual facts of the matter regarding the extent to which technologies can extract sufficient energy to combat the consequences of doing so.

As an illustration, let me ask you this. You seem opposed to solar power, yes? The sun provides 37 Petawatts of energy, our global needs only amount to about 4, so there's plenty of energy there to provide all our needs. so why oppose solar? Your oppose it on the grounds of the limitations of current technology, yet when it comes to your pet theory, you ignore limits of current technology and assume we'll find a way.

But you've yet to demonstrate this. That you think it's possible without any expertise in the matter at all, is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is, in fact, possible. — Isaac

First, I said I'd demonstrated the rightfulness and trustworthiness of science as a rationale for the application of technology - not demonstrated that the extraction of heat energy from magma is possible. Second, if we only ever commented on things we were experts in, you'd be unable to speak at all, unless someone wanted advice on being insufferable!

Why? What's special about your guesswork that makes it worth thinking about? — Isaac

Many things, but if there were one indicator I'd point to, it's that I explain the problem and the solution in the same terms. That's when I really knew I was onto something.

No, you have to prove that it's technologically feasible to extract that heat without insurmountable consequential factors. — Isaac

At some stage, sure. But I don't see that happening here and now.

No, you're just declaring it to be the case without any evidence presented whatsoever. — Isaac

I haven't presented evidence to you, no. I don't intend to. I've told you that. People like you get a kick out of making other people jump through hoops, and I'm not here for your entertainment. So pour your incredible toxic scorn, but it remains, the earth is a big ball of molten rock, and we need that energy to tackle climate change. Wind and solar are weak and inconstant, while magma energy can give us vast, constant base load power.

As an illustration, let me ask you this. You seem opposed to solar power, yes? The sun provides 37 Petawatts of energy, our global needs only amount to about 4, so there's plenty of energy there to provide all our needs. so why oppose solar? Your oppose it on the grounds of the limitations of current technology, yet when it comes to your pet theory, you ignore limits of current technology and assume we'll find a way. — Isaac

I suppose I am opposed to solar, yes! But not for the reasons you might imagine. It's a matter of entrenching an approach to sustainability I don't believe can work. This is the dominant narrative in the field; the pessimistic Malthusian, limits to resources approach to sustainability. I think it's wrong, and can only lead to disaster.

We need more energy - not less; less reliable and more expensive energy. We need lots of reliable clean energy and magma is potentially, a high grade source of limitless base load power. We need that amount of energy to spend to attack the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side, and sustain capitalist growth - accounting for the externalities of capitalism by internalising them with magma energy, carbon capture, desalination, irrigation, recycling - rather than internalising them to the economy.

That so, solar is not the right technology. I have a solar powered calculator! I don't hate solar. But gathering a weak and inconstant form of energy from 225,000 square miles - just to meet current global energy demand; the staggering ongoing costs of constructing and maintaining such an array, and the question of recycling and replacing those panels after 25 years, to say nothing of the facilities required to store that energy, we be locked in and bankrupted, and have no more energy to spend than before. We need a way forward, and potentially, magma energy offers a better future.

You given nothing to indicate the underlined. Everything you say might be nonsense for all we know because you refuse to cite anything. — Isaac

Yes, and that’s pretty suspicious to me. It doesn’t take long to provide some links or references. So far it’s been nothing but gut feelings, which is of no value whatsoever.

What I propose hasn't been done. As far as I'm aware, the research doesn't exist. There is other research that is relevant in some respect, a piece of technology here, a geological fact there, but as far as I'm aware, there are no significant plans to plug into the planet at scale. — counterpunch

Okay— then why go around repeating this dream over and over again? Are you an engineer? Or geologist? Or geophysicist? No? Then enough already. No one is interested in your delusions of grandeur.

I could “propose” something too— so what? I can propose we geoengineer the planet to cool it down. I’ll go around preaching this, offer no evidence or references about it, and then act surprised when people ignore me.

But gathering a weak and inconstant form of energy from 225,000 square miles - just to meet current global energy demand; the staggering ongoing costs of constructing and maintaining such an array, and the question of recycling and replacing those panels after 25 years, to say nothing of the facilities required to store that energy, we be locked in and bankrupted, and have no more energy to spend than before. — counterpunch

No, solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels now. You haven’t been paying attention. They pay for themselves within a few years. But most importantly, they’re green. Any issue with them — replacement, etc — pales in comparison to fossil fuels and the magma technology which you propose— which would currently be hugely expensive. But since you provide no numbers, we can only guess. Since it’s not being done, we can assume why.

True, we can think some internet guy has figured it all out and that actual experts have overlooked this amazing discovery— but forgive me if I don’t bet on that.

Wind and solar are weak and inconstant, while magma energy can give us vast, constant base load power. — counterpunch

No, it can’t. I’ll present just as much evidence to support this claim as you have with yours: my gut feelings.

Just stop already. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You offer no evidence. You have no expertise. You admit there’s no research on this yet. So why continue on? The fact that you think you’re “really on to something” just sounds embarrassing.

I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but now you’re just sounding ridiculous. Your point has been made— move on.

No, it can’t. I’ll present just as much evidence to support this claim as you have with yours: my gut feelings.

Just stop already. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You offer no evidence. You have no expertise. You admit there’s no research on this yet. So why continue on? The fact that you think you’re “really on to something” just sounds embarrassing.

I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but now you’re just sounding ridiculous. Your point has been made— move on. — Xtrix

Is it that - having me point out a possible, but seemingly unlikely means of securing a sustainable future implies horrors too terrible to contemplate? Because, if that's why you would rather not hear from me - I'd counter that's exactly why you need to listen. Sustainability is the biggest philosophical question we have ever faced, and your cowardly viciousness doesn't alter the fact I've been thinking about this, reading about it, and worrying for over 25 years. I know what I think about the most important philosophical question of our time, and what I think is at least interesting, but if you're not interested please feel free to go fuck yourself elsewhere!

magma is potentially, a high grade source of limitless base load power. — counterpunch

So is absolutely any source whatsoever according to your current usage of 'potentially', which seems to include anything anyone reckons.

We need that amount of energy to spend to ... sustain capitalist growth — counterpunch

Why?

the staggering ongoing costs of constructing and maintaining such an array, and the question of recycling and replacing those panels after 25 years, to say nothing of the facilities required to store that energy — counterpunch

And the equivalent costs for geothermal are...? Let me guess, you just reckon they'd be less.

You're transparent. Ideological opposition to left wing politics (and therefore existing renewables by association) supported post hoc by a shambolic edifice of speculation.

So is absolutely any source whatsoever according to your current usage of 'potentially', which seems to include anything anyone reckons. — Isaac

No. What you reckon is specifically excluded.

Why? — Isaac

For all sorts of reasons; where to begin. Capitalism works. Capitalism has the knowledge, technology and skills to develop and apply the technology. It is the prevailing economic paradigm, upon which billions of people depend for their supper! What do you mean, why?

And the equivalent costs for geothermal are...? Let me guess, you just reckon they'd be less. — Isaac

Infrastructure costs associated with a facility, drawing on magma heat energy to produce electricity are likely to be heavy up front, falling almost to zero thereafter. Once constructed - it would not cost much to run, and would outlast wind and solar, which needs replacing after 25 years. So, yes, it would be less expensive than solar. That said, I'm loathe to put a figure on how much energy can be extracted from magma, and so cannot give you an ROI or £/Kwh figure. I expect that would vary for each specific location this technology could be deployed, and relate to what heat could be reached at what depth, and so on. But I think it would be a better investment in the long term.

You're transparent. Ideological opposition to left wing politics (and therefore existing renewables by association) supported post hoc by a shambolic edifice of speculation. — Isaac

I am transparently opposed to a left wing approach to sustainability, you're right. I make no secret of that fact. I told you so in the previous post. I argue for an approach that can sustain capitalism going forward; an approach that does not imply an ongoing anti-capitalist stranglehold on civilisation, to no tangible or quantifiable end.

Albeit I argue for an approach based in science, that applies the necessary technologies first, because the physics cannot change - nonetheless, via the mechanisms, and in support of the prevailing capitalist economic system. We have to get there from here - not throw some huge ideological obstacle; i.e. tearing down capitalism, in the way of a sustainable future.

The sun provides 37 Petawatts of energy, our global needs only amount to about 4, so there's plenty of energy there to provide all our needs. — Isaac

I wasn't closely following the debate with the crackpot, but these numbers jumped out at me.If our energy needs were on the order of 10% of all solar energy that reaches the surface, that would be a shockingly huge amount! But I think you made a mistake somewhere, perhaps conflating yearly and hourly rates or something like that. This wiki page gives a handy comparison table: Solar energy

Yearly solar fluxes & human consumption
Solar 3,850,000
Wind 2,250
Biomass potential ~200
Primary energy use 539
Electricity ~67

Energy given in Exajoule (EJ) = 10¹⁸ J = 278 TWh

I wasn't closely following the debate with the crackpot, — SophistiCat

Then let me bring you up to speed. I'm saying a left wing anti-capitalist green commie approach to sustainability is wrong, because the root problem is a mistaken relationship to science, and the consequent misapplication of technology. Applying the right technologies; starting with magma energy technology we could sustain capitalist growth going forward, and would not need to crush the poor with taxes - the rich will hardly notice. I'm actually quite surprised the left could advocate such a policy approach!

Yeah, it does look crazy the way I've written it! The figures I quoted were from memory from a paper out of the Max Plank Institute from several years back. If I recall, the 37PW was available solar energy, so would be the equivalent of about the 174PW in the Wikipedia article minus the amounts returned to the atmosphere and in water vapour latent heat (89 absorbed-12-40=37). The total power figure was for all energy, including agriculture and I think included ecosystem services too (hence much higher than our actual electricity consumption - which is only about 15TW I think). It was about sustaining the human population rather than supplying our electricity. I'm afraid the paper is so old that I actually read the literal paper copy and I can't recall the title, otherwise I'd recommend it, it was very interesting. The main point was, that we can't just use up all the solar energy because most of it is busy doing stuff - like driving the climate and ecosystems etc. Apologies for the confusion, but in my defence, clarity wasn't my top priority!

Is it that - having me point out a possible, but seemingly unlikely means of securing a sustainable future implies horrors too terrible to contemplate? Because, if that's why you would rather not hear from me - I'd counter that's exactly why you need to listen. — counterpunch

No, it's you who need to listen. I didn't say a word of that. You've put those words in my mouth.

I'll repeat: you preach about something you don't understand. You offer to evidence, no research, and refuse even to provide a single link. Later, you admit there *is* no research, and that you're essentially going on your gut. This is why no one is interested. Otherwise, I'm all for magma energy -- and I hope I'm completely wrong and you turn out to be completely right -- I would love nothing more. But anyone can go around claiming they have the silver bullet. Anyone. Without evidence, it's just a claim by a non-expert on the internet. My claim for geo-engineering (as an example) is just as relevant, in that case.

Sustainability is the biggest philosophical question we have ever faced, and your cowardly viciousness doesn't alter the fact I've been thinking about this, reading about it, and worrying for over 25 years. I know what I think about the most important philosophical question of our time, and what I think is at least interesting, but if you're not interested please feel free to go fuck yourself elsewhere! — counterpunch

The fact that you're this defensive, and apparently too blind to see what others are trying to show you here, tells me that this really isn't about sustainability at all. It's about you wanting to believe you've found something other people (including thousands of experts) have somehow ignored. That's your own issue.

So you've been "thinking about, reading about, and worrying about" this for 25 years, yet provide no references whatsoever? Interesting.

magma is potentially, a high grade source of limitless base load power.
— counterpunch

So is absolutely any source whatsoever according to your current usage of 'potentially', which seems to include anything anyone reckons. — Isaac

100% correct. The difference? This happens to be something he's staked his identity on. Good to know, so I can ignore him easily in future conversations. Just placate him and maybe he'll go away.

The fact that anyone can delude themselves into believing they've got an answer to a global crisis is astounding enough. But then to demonstrate no expertise whatsoever, and no references, is beyond the pale.

Capitalism works. Capitalism has the knowledge, technology and skills to develop and apply the technology. — counterpunch

Ah, the picture becomes clearer now.

Capitalism has the knowledge and skills. Good ol' capitalism. Such a fine head on his shoulders.

It is the prevailing economic paradigm — counterpunch

No, it isn't. Because capitalism doesn't exist anywhere. What we have is a state-capitalist system, with massive state intervention on all levels. Subsidies, bailouts, a central bank, etc. etc. We have what boils down to a corporate welfare/socialist system. It's easy to see, when you look around.

I wasn't closely following the debate with the crackpot, — SophistiCat

I laughed at this.

I'm saying a left wing anti-capitalist green commie approach to sustainability is wrong — counterpunch

:rofl:

Hard to believe I took you seriously early on. Silly me.

You offer to evidence, no research, and refuse even to provide a single link. — Xtrix

Evidence, to show what? What exactly is it that you want me to prove? What is it that you can't google for yourself?

So you've been "thinking about, reading about, and worrying about" this for 25 years, yet provide no references whatsoever? Interesting. — Xtrix

If I recommended a book, what are you going to do? Run out and buy it? Read it so we can discuss it? What the point?

No, it isn't. Because capitalism doesn't exist anywhere. What we have is a state-capitalist system, with massive state intervention on all levels. Subsidies, bailouts, a central bank, etc. etc. We have what boils down to a corporate welfare/socialist system. It's easy to see, when you look around. — Xtrix

All economies are mixed economies to a greater or lesser degree. That's true, but is that relevant to the question of whether we approach climate change back peddling, having less and paying more, and taxing the poor to supress demand, and failing to secure the future anyway, or by harnessing massive clean energy from magma and continuing to prosper?

The left have dominated environmentalism for decades; while admittedly, the right have buried their head in the sand, allowing a limits to resources, anti-capitalist narrative to go unchallenged. Everyone just assumes sustainability implies huge, across the board anti-capitalist sacrifice. I don't believe that's true; scientifically and technologically, it is not necessarily so. Besides, Malthus was wrong. We invented tractors and fertilizers, and food production hugely outpaced population growth. Climate change is the same sort of panic, but there is a glaring technological solution - if the technology to harness magma energy can be developed and applied we can transcend limits to growth. And we should.

Evidence, to show what? What exactly is it that you want me to prove? What is it that you can't google for yourself? — counterpunch

If I recommended a book, what are you going to do? Run out and buy it? Read it so we can discuss it? What the point? — counterpunch

Lol. So confused! What is this "reference" you ask for?! I'm a wealth of information about this subject, having read and worried about it for years, but there's no need to point to a single source about the topic when you can Google it all yourself! True, I'm the one making the claims and in fact raising this subject in the first place, but never mind that -- take me on faith, and don't expect me to provide YOU with anything of substance. I'm not your secretary.

Etc.

You have no idea what you're talking about, pal. So don't worry your little head about references or evidence for your crackpot ramblings. Just be happy with knowing that you've cracked the climate crisis -- and I hope humanity starts listening to your extraordinary solution! Well done!

Just be happy with knowing that you've cracked the climate crisis -- I just hope humanity starts listening to your extraordinary solution! Well done! — Xtrix

Thanks. But credit should really go to Wilson Clark - who wrote an encyclopaedia of potential energy technologies published in 1972, entitled Energy for Survival - the alternative to extinction!

:lol: